Guild Wars 2

Sorry, I have to get this out, otherwise, it’s just going to rattle in my brain for a month or so.

Bottom line: Lots of hard work and tough decisions. You need to start from scratch. Wipe the slate clean. Start anew.

1) Eliminate all servers.

This would be highly unpopular. I sure as heck wouldn’t like it. I’ve been on Blackgate since launch. I have tons of server pride. However, the 24 server system is not for WvW. Why 24 servers? Because that’s how many were needed FOR EVERYONE, not just WvW. Just like any other server based MMO, this is done to handle capacity. It is unfair to expect there to be even amounts of WvW players across 24 servers. This is obvious and only compounded with transfers. This would solve server imbalance. Don’t worry, there are solutions for blobbing later.

However, don’t make the same mistake as the first time. Set up some ground rules having learned from the mistakes and successes of the past:

• Create 3 new servers
• Gate the transfers of people to the new servers based on population. As one server starts to fill, close it so the others can fill up and match the server levels. This process should take at least a week. This is to ensure even populations across all timezones and should help to curb “night capping.”
• One can ONLY transfer to a lower populated server for a gem cost and can not participate in WvW for a week.
• People who want to participate in WvW after this process will ONLY be allowed to enter the lower populated servers.
• Population numbers will not be exact as people come and go, move on to other things but don’t leave. There will have to be a buffer amount at the top end. There should be ongoing metrics of actual participating players to determine a servers population health (this is crucial, you can’t just set it up and leave it alone). This buffer amount will also be needed for large groups of people who want to transfer or newly participate, like guilds.

2) Create 3 new maps.

Lets face it. The old maps are just that, old. I feel like I’ve worn through the digital road to the great, vast ocean of water that awaits below. More importantly, the boarderland style doesn’t work, and, lets face it, its kinda lazy. We know every knoll, nook and vally. We know every siege placement. We know exactly how far siege fires. It’s just stale. Yes, yes, I know you made EotM, but it isn’t in the rotation. WvWers barley play it. This will, of course, probably be the hardest and most time consuming. Heck, you already have EotM. Tweek it for balance and you are already on your way!

• No BL style maps. They should be tri-balanced, like EB.
• Each map should have different population caps. This is crucial for balance and helps to eliminate blobbing. The time it takes to travel from one objective to another is crucial to this. Base your population on the map, not an arbitrary number.
• Purposfully make new maps have different population sizes. Make one map hold 120, one 80, one 40. This would add a great variety. And allow for some creative license, not only with the maps, but also with gameplay, for example:
• Have one map be a city style map. Instead of capping and holding major objectives, the PPT would be based on the percentage of the city that the server controls. One could have barricades that get built in the streets that determines you’re control cut off point. There could be a big area in the middle, like a square or garden similar to Divinities Reach or Ebonhawke) that has more open field type fights. Maybe some siege is disabled, like trebuchets. Someone else thought of city maps. I just made up the other stuff right now. The point is you see how creative you can get if one is paid for it and spends some time thinking about it. (This bullet point has gotten out of control)
  *Having maps with different populations would cater to different play styles. Most people don’t like blobbing. I personally like large scale fights (Not blobbing, but actual orginized fighting). Some like 40 v 40, 20 v 20s, and 10 v 10s. Different population maps would help to encourage that instead of having to run around for 20-30 minutes PvDing and hoping to run into someone or pull the enemy to you. Boring!
• Base the number of maps needed on the population of WvW. As the population grows, add a map (have one in your back pocket, it’s a great thing if you need to pull it out), as it shrinks, pull one out of the rotation so the maps aren’t dead.

Continued in another post. Have to wait 5 minutes

3) Have a real overflow system.

You’ve come out with megaservers. It works in PvE and EotM. EotM was your solution to overflow issues, however, due to the rules you set up and your updated que interface, this failed miserably. You have to implement different rules and stick with them, otherwise, it really isn’t an overflow map, is it?

• Overflow maps should be one-way streets.
• One can not enter an overflow map unless all maps are qued.
• One can not enter an overflow map unless all maps are qued. (it is so important, I did it twice.
• In order to enter an overflow map, you must first be qued for a regular WvW map. At this point, you may choose from the two smallest map population WvW overflow maps (it’s important to have a choice).
• Once your que pops, you must either take it, or be kicked to where you were before you entered.
• One can not invite people or join others in a particular overflow map via party selection. These are overflow maps. They are not meant to be places to purposefully bring lots of people or camp out at. Besides, due to above, once your que pops, you will be redirected to either WvW or some other place. Yes, you can que again, but your instance may not be the same.

4) Implement real changes that the WvWers have asked for.

I don’t want to go down the list. You have the forums forums for that. Stuff along the lines of different colored commander tags. Squad interface. Dots on the mini-map that indicate squads differences. Stuff that actually effects large scale PvP which is what WvW is all about.

5) Get rid of things that just don’t work.

Is this guild wars or siege wars? I feel, and I’m not the only one, that Anet has given us more siege abilites to merely codify the players that they are getting something new. However, this has just made the game dynamic revolve around siege more. That is a bad thing. As a result, you’ve had to come out with more and more abilities that center around siege to balance things out. You get rid of projectile reflection blocking treb shots, but you put an ability on catapaults? How dumb is that? Now we just build a catapault amongst our 3 trebs. This isn’t working.

Create a whole new WvW ranking system that centers more around player abilites. I haven’t put much thought into this, just trying to get what’s currently in my brain out. Just trying to get through the big points rather than getting caught up in the minutia. Upon writing, you’d probably have to reset all WvW rank points and condense them, for example, I have maybe 1600? So, maybe after this big slate cleaning, I will have 100. It’s arbitrary, really. It should be relative to whatever the amount and ticks the new ranking abilites are.

Provide more health to gates and walls relative to siege.

Make Lords scale to population imbalace.

The biggies.

6) Create a real GvG area.

This isn’t just a map, or a portion of a map, but a whole new map and game mode, like PvP, just on a larger scale. it need its own interface. There’s been enough on the forums about this.

7) Think outside the box more!

It isn’t popular on the forums, but I think many people like the “orb” system. It adds a whole new dynamic to the game. It rewards fights. It makes us have to consider points denied and points recieved per stomp. That’s a lot of dimension. Keep stuff like this that works. I just came up with the ppt system in that city map thing while writing this. Imagine what you guys could do.

There’s lots of other stuff, but most of it has already been suggested in the forums. Little things that make a difference. This post is mostly to get stuff off my mind, and to let people realize that YOU SHOULDN’T PATCH SOMETHING THAT’S BROKEN. REBUILD IT. That’s what most of the existing forum posts are doing. Offering suggestions to patch something that needs to be scrapped. You have to start from scratch.

However, this post is a wishlist. It will never happen. It requires too much work and resources. Looking at how many new modes and maps PvP has received tells me this.

OK, send me a check for $5,000. You have my details on file.

Spurnshadow.3678:

There’s lots of other stuff, but most of it has already been suggested in the forums. Little things that make a difference. This post is mostly to get stuff off my mind, and to let people realize that YOU SHOULDN’T PATCH SOMETHING THAT’S BROKEN. REBUILD IT. That’s what most of the existing forum posts are doing. Offering suggestions to patch something that needs to be scrapped. You have to start from scratch.

If all mmos followed your suggestion, no mmo would ever make it to market.

I agree, wvw does need some fixes, but it doesn’t need an entire rework. As you already said, that will never happen, especially since wvw isn’t the main aspect of this game. I am hoping to see some fixes down the road to make wvw a bit more interesting. But an entire redo? Come on, be realistic.

@OP Some good suggestions, but – as you yourself point out – not likely to ever happen.

WvW is all I do and I was desperately hoping for something better than what we got. Unfortunately, it isn’t ArenaNet’s focus; PvE is (and likely always will be).

For dedicated Realm vs Realm, we’ll just have to wait for another game to come out that does it better. Perhaps I’ll C U you there

I disagree with all of the suggestions on the OP’s post. Every single one.

• I believe there should be an allegiance system.

• I think there should be better and more interesting upgrades available at a keep, things that make you want to keep it. This way servers can say “we concentrate on keeping this keep, and the others can be wooden” etc. Perhaps make it so that only certain keeps can get certain upgrades to encourage this “choice” aspect [edit: on second thoughts, this is an awful idea]. One example: Golem repair/upgrade workshop.

• It’s my opinion that there should be a set number of guards for each realm and that number should get recalculated at tick depending on the following rule: The number of guards you have should be spread across your currently held objectives. This will make it less likely that one side will be focused down to nothing, and much more difficult for the enemy to do so.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Eliminate all servers.

not gonna happen. ever.

• Gate the transfers of people to the new servers based on population. As one server starts to fill, close it so the others can fill up and match the server levels. This process should take at least a week. This is to ensure even populations across all timezones and should help to curb “night capping.”

more ocx/sea manages to get into server A before it gets full. Less gets into server B before it gets full. same kitten will happen.

• One can ONLY transfer to a lower populated server for a gem cost and can not participate in WvW for a week.

Ok, we let servers fill up with baddies/pugs/banwagons first. Then we have an organized mass transfer of all old guilds from BG into some low pop server. Same kitten as now.

• Population numbers will not be exact as people come and go, move on to other things but don’t leave. There will have to be a buffer amount at the top end. There should be ongoing metrics of actual participating players to determine a servers population health (this is crucial, you can’t just set it up and leave it alone). This buffer amount will also be needed for large groups of people who want to transfer or newly participate, like guilds.

good luck coding this.

Create 3 new maps.

are you prepared to wait a minimum of 3 years?

Spurnshadow.3678:

3) Have a real overflow system.

I thought you just said that a new map should be added if the others fill up?

Is this guild wars or siege wars?

wvw is both.

You get rid of projectile reflection blocking treb shots, but you put an ability on catapaults? How dumb is that? Now we just build a catapault amongst our 3 trebs. This isn’t working.

actually, this was an improvement as it makes us pay more attention to our supply usage and we aren’t reliant on one class to do it.

Provide more health to gates and walls relative to siege.

agreed

6) Create a real GvG area.

This isn’t just a map, or a portion of a map, but a whole new map and game mode, like PvP, just on a larger scale. it need its own interface. There’s been enough on the forums about this.

agreed

7) Think outside the box more!

It isn’t popular on the forums, but I think many people like the “orb” system. It adds a whole new dynamic to the game. It rewards fights. It makes us have to consider points denied and points recieved per stomp. That’s a lot of dimension. Keep stuff like this that works. I just came up with the ppt system in that city map thing while writing this. Imagine what you guys could do.

the ctf style of the old orbs was probably what people liked most about it.

Looking at how many new modes and maps PvP has received tells me this.

what new game mode? also, pvp maps are a fraction of the size of a wvw map.

I disagree on your point “Maps”.

Maps do not change anything in first place. To make it short and simple. Your girl gets a new Hairstyle, she is still the same girl. Maybe she looks hotter with it? But she is still the same. She does not get that its ok for you if this movie has no real plot but solid action and e.c.t. e.c.t. …

Changing maps is the most obvious way for a developer to stay fresh and in general the cheapest way to ignore balance discussions. But I just want to point out, if a game has to stay fresh it has major problems in his core. It should not be needed and like all other long living games are proving over and over and over again. Maps do not need to change at all.

Nuances maybe. make this hill to a cliff so people can not walk up and stuff. A map can always evolve a bit if the developer dislikes the movement we do or the majority disagrees with certain small parts of the area. Thats ofc healthy but to change the maps? Nothing will change. Learn again how to siege and other basic stuff will be done fast. And than it comes to what games are all about or should be all about. Execution!

Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. I know there’s a lot there. If I may.

[quote}more ocx/sea manages to get into server A before it gets full. Less gets into server B before it gets full. same kitten will happen.[/quote]

What I imagine are small increments as the servers rotate to accept players.

Ok, we let servers fill up with baddies/pugs/banwagons first. Then we have an organized mass transfer of all old guilds from BG into some low pop server. Same kitten as now.

The system i have in mind, this wouldn’t be possible. If a large group of people were to transfer to another server, lets say from A to C, then C becomes the larger populated server and it would reach its cap. It would be closed for transfers.

3) Have a real overflow system.

I thought you just said that a new map should be added if the others fill up?

These are seperate things that all work together. The overflow system are for the minor fluctuations during peak times. But as the re-birth of WvW draws more people in, then a new map would be needed so that there are not people in an overflow map all the time. Like I said earlier, and you said “good luck with that,” it requires hard work and programming to keep metrics of the amount of people in overflow, at what times, the average wait time to get into WvW proper.

You get rid of projectile reflection blocking treb shots, but you put an ability on catapaults? How dumb is that? Now we just build a catapault amongst our 3 trebs. This isn’t working.

actually, this was an improvement as it makes us pay more attention to our supply usage and we aren’t reliant on one class to do it.

There were multiple classes and abilites that could block/reflect treb shots. It wasn’t limited to swirling winds. Over the course of maybe a half-year, they slowly eliminated these skills. It’s just the classic case of the developers not thinking of the repercussions. I’m sure they wanted to offer protection from players, not as something to be used to block treb shots, cycled by 5 players to have permanent treb proteciton, for 25 supply. Heck, I carry 20 supply. It’s not that hard to manage that. If I’m lucky, I can build a cata all by myself.

But that is getting into the minutia rather than looking at the bigger picture: 90% of the WXP abilites centered around siege. I’m sure there’s more that can be done here. Better things that focus on players and groups. There are tons of suggestions which focus on the minutia. They should be taken into account, but their premised on the existing WvW system.

Looking at how many new modes and maps PvP has received tells me this.

what new game mode? also, pvp maps are a fraction of the size of a wvw map.

I think you missed my point: we are in agreement. PvP has barely received map updates. I think the one thing they’ve wanted for the longest time was a different type of map other than cap and hold. They got an arena, but that is not in the sPvP or tPvP rotation. It is reflective of the resouces put into the non PvE aspects of the game.

I did say at the end that this is a wishlist and will never happen. However, the thing is, it could if they care. If they really understand how important WvW is to the end game. If they hire some people and get cracking now, they could have something like what I descirbed. New games have come out. Some, like ESO are flops, from what I understand. I palyed it for a month. Other games are coming out now and are filled with bugs which will take a long time to correct. Still more will be released in the near future. Heck, it could be an expansion. I’d gladly pay $20-$40 bucks for a whole new WvW.

GW2 can still compete with them because it has a great fight mechanic and it’s beautiful to play. It isn’t over if they start now and start anew.

Souju.5816:

I disagree on your point “Maps”.

Maps do not change anything in first place. To make it short and simple. Your girl gets a new Hairstyle, she is still the same girl. Maybe she looks hotter with it? But she is still the same. She does not get that its ok for you if this movie has no real plot but solid action and e.c.t. e.c.t. …

Changing maps is the most obvious way for a developer to stay fresh and in general the cheapest way to ignore balance discussions. But I just want to point out, if a game has to stay fresh it has major problems in his core. It should not be needed and like all other long living games are proving over and over and over again. Maps do not need to change at all.

Nuances maybe. make this hill to a cliff so people can not walk up and stuff. A map can always evolve a bit if the developer dislikes the movement we do or the majority disagrees with certain small parts of the area. Thats ofc healthy but to change the maps? Nothing will change. Learn again how to siege and other basic stuff will be done fast. And than it comes to what games are all about or should be all about. Execution!

We’ve been playing the same two maps for almost two years. We need something new. EB is still an extremely well balanced map, though. However, I’m not just advocating new maps. Having just new maps wouldn’t cut it, as the same issues would still be there underneath. It would be a whole new system, starting from scratch. That’s like dumping your girlfriend for a new one.

Svarty.8019:

I disagree with all of the suggestions on the OP’s post. Every single one.

• I believe there should be an allegiance system.

• I think there should be better and more interesting upgrades available at a keep, things that make you want to keep it. This way servers can say “we concentrate on keeping this keep, and the others can be wooden” etc. Perhaps make it so that only certain keeps can get certain upgrades to encourage this “choice” aspect. One example: Golem repair/upgrade workshop.

• It’s my opinion that there should be a set number of guards for each realm and that number should get recalculated at tick depending on the following rule: The number of guards you have should be spread across your currently held objectives. This will make it less likely that one side will be focused down to nothing, and much more difficult for the enemy to do so.

I agree with you!

I can see a fix but no one has listened yet.

Put the “lower” servers together but only for the fight they still keep their server identification but they are allied, nothing more, they can still go against one another in their own tiers(by WvW numbers, not server numbers – history is everything here) together three servers against a very large one – five servers against one – two servers against one.

Then – give us more of a health pool – make it take more than one or two hits to kill any player – this isn’t pvp and we can’t run back easily – pvp can.

If rebuilding aka redesigning WvW is the only way to make WvW really interesting. Then, anet need to truly make proper plans on how to create a self-sustained system for WvW which means players are given the choice to greatly influence the WvW systems. However, most of the plans that I can think of will result in huge negativities and true hardcore level of gameplay which is not wanted in gw2. The hardcore level can be downplayed but the negativities are inevitable. However, I am sure there are many talented and creative people in the company, so, I am sure they are capable of finding ground breaking ways to bring about a pking gameplay which has less negativity.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Souju.5816:

I disagree on your point “Maps”.

Maps do not change anything in first place. To make it short and simple. Your girl gets a new Hairstyle, she is still the same girl. Maybe she looks hotter with it? But she is still the same. She does not get that its ok for you if this movie has no real plot but solid action and e.c.t. e.c.t. …

Changing maps is the most obvious way for a developer to stay fresh and in general the cheapest way to ignore balance discussions. But I just want to point out, if a game has to stay fresh it has major problems in his core. It should not be needed and like all other long living games are proving over and over and over again. Maps do not need to change at all.

Nuances maybe. make this hill to a cliff so people can not walk up and stuff. A map can always evolve a bit if the developer dislikes the movement we do or the majority disagrees with certain small parts of the area. Thats ofc healthy but to change the maps? Nothing will change. Learn again how to siege and other basic stuff will be done fast. And than it comes to what games are all about or should be all about. Execution!

We’ve been playing the same two maps for almost two years. We need something new. EB is still an extremely well balanced map, though. However, I’m not just advocating new maps. Having just new maps wouldn’t cut it, as the same issues would still be there underneath. It would be a whole new system, starting from scratch. That’s like dumping your girlfriend for a new one.

EB is the only map that makes any logical sense.

We need a larger EB type map – one that maybe has two castles – leaving one only one server “out” of the ppt fight for long…

Wvw is fine. Just add guild vs guild matchmaking system so all the elite players can gather in elite guild and be victorious in a ladder system

I really liked your idea about a city-style map. I think that would actually be a nice new change. As for most of your other ideas, it prevents guilds from recruiting people because they wouldn’t be able to join their server if its full, and it prevents friends from playing with each other too much. But I do really like that city-style map idea.

From the following thread

DevonCarver.5370:

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

It has come to the point that as WvW has not received real updates since launch that we ourselves would not mind doing the testing.

I can appreciate that many people don’t like EotM, but don’t conflate a lack of updates that you personally like with a lack of updates. WvW has added a great deal of content and rewards over just the last calendar year.

Hopefully you will find more you like in future updates and we’ll continue to add to the game.

• Bold emphasis above is mine.

From this comment, it appears the devs believe the health of WvW to be just fine as is. And know what? They’re right…when viewed from their perspective.

That perspective being they take a shotgun approach to WvW where they attempt to have it be all things to everyone. What’s more is, they’re perfectly happy with their current monetization model for WvW; creating an environment of imbalanced servers, rewarding that imbalance with in-game shinies, then profiting from the transfers between servers.

As much as some among the forum community would like to believe the devs are ignorant and out-of-touch with their own WvW game, this simply isn’t the case. Make no mistake; WvW is precisely the way it is because they want it this way. It’s not an accident. They are profiting from the current model and – as long as they continue to do so – there’s not much motivation to change it.

Seen from a certain sub-set of the player base, WvW is failing. It’s not meeting their expectation for a more balanced and competitive Realm versus Realm game where skill is at least equal to numbers. And know what? They’re right, too…when viewed from their perspective.

At the end of the day, however, it’s ArenaNet’s game. They make the rules and establish the parameters of play. It either meets a player’s needs or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, there’s really no recourse within the confines of GW2. As much as we may like to see it change, it just isn’t going to happen. If a developer continues along a set path with practically no deviation after 2 years, then the game you have is all the game you’re going to get.

Sure, there will be some superficial window dressing changes that get labeled as major content additions. The core play experience, though, is largely set in stone and will remain that way for as long as ArenaNet can continue to profit from it (which they are; just witness WvW Season 2 and all the transfers).

Those who would like to experience a more balanced and skill-based implementation of Realm versus Realm (and I include myself among that crowd) just aren’t going to get it with GW2’s WvW. Period.

Our choices are to simply live with what we’ve got or move on to something else. Of course, that latter option is problematic as there aren’t really any viable large-scale Realm versus Realm games out right now aside from GW2 (and ArenaNet knows it).

The third option is to continue to play the game while feeling disappointed that it isn’t living up to our personal expectations. We can then complain on the forum about it, but ultimately it’s falling on deaf ears as witnessed by the lack of any substantive changes to the core WvW gaming experience over the last 2 years (all the CDIs notwithstanding).

Here’s another idea (been mentioned many times before):

• Tick every 30 mins or 45 mins, or hourly, instead of 15 mins.
  Advantage: Punishes mindless blobbing of objectives without taking PPT into account.

The only thing I agree with is a GvG area. Not like OS, I mean an actually GvG area where the combat is disabled for anyone not in the combat arena and no one can enter the combat arena that is not part of the match. Something like that would be great.

All of your other ideas are dumb. People want variety, eliminating all servers would be suicide for the game.

Anet just needs to sell off the WvW aspect of GW2 and let someone else handle it. Its clear they don’t have enough staff/resources/money to put any effort into it.

Sell it off and then re-package it as nother game and sell it to people again.

Is that someone at the door?

tldr:

Iow:
-Create maps with a population cap that your servers can handle.
-Optimization where you don’t dump the entire workload on your customers.
-Implement guildgroup commander icons.
-Create objectives that force a server to hold multiple points and force a split in population. (iow hold this point to open the door/portal open into a keep)
-Smaller maps (spvp maps) for the server overflow that counts kills as points for your server.
-WvW events like “The Orb” to promote dynamic gameplay.
-Kick off capture “outmanned bonus event” capture an objective for a set amount of points (activated like siegerazer) if you succeed get 200/300/400 points bonus per tier.
etc etc etc..

i personally would like to see optimization and some new content that promotes dynamic gameplay.

And if all else fails.. OP’s suggestions.

The “server vs server vs server” idea never should have been implemented in the first place, not when equality is soley based on how many people on a given server prefer to PvP/zerg or not.

Hindsight however is 20/20.

It doesn’t mean it still can’t be fixed, but it does mean people just have to accept the current idea does not work and there is absolutely no fix to make it work. We can’t force people to be come WvW’ers or PvP’ers (if you will) when they simply don’t like it.

It just makes logical sense to combine all the people who actually want to WvW in either 3 servers (because there are 3 colors or 3 factions), or in one giant pool where players can freely pick for what side to fight for.

I don’t also see why they can’t use existing PvE maps for WvW. A few coding changes to add in the structures and voila, we have much larger maps which is one thing people have been asking for.

Ultimately though, some reward structure needs to be in place that allows people who wan’t to soley do WvW to be able to obtain the same items as PvE’ers get (and vice versa).